Definition of Species

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact25% picked this

   It is becoming increasingly difficult to enact international agreements to protect

   We're only analyzing how many species would "need" protection, not how many species would get international protection. So the fact that international wildlife agreements are increasingly tough has no bearing on what we're analyzing.

   25%
2. B

   No Impact4% picked this

   Increasing the number of species through reclassification is more likely to result in new avian species than

   This is talking about avian vs. mammalian, but what we care about is protected vs. unprotected.

   4%
3. C

   No Impact31% picked this

   In disputes over protection of endangered species, economic considerations often outweigh

   There's nothing in here that relates to our hypothetical New World in which we're increasing the number of species. This weak idea that economics often outweighs science isn't giving us any reason to believe that some of these "new" species would add to the list of protected species.

   31%
4. D

   No Impact14% picked this

   Advances in scientific techniques like DNA-DNA hybridization will probably favor the efforts of proponents of

   There's nothing useful in here to justify the idea that, "If we have new species, we'll have new protected species." This answer seems to be trying to convince us that future science will favor the Splitters. But we're not trying to strengthen the idea that we will be increasing the number of species. In other words, we're not trying to strengthen the trigger idea of, "If we increase number, we'll increase number of protected species" We need to understand the connection. Why would a world where Splitters are favored and more species are named lead to more protected species?

   14%
5. E

   Correct26% picked this

   Proponents of the phylogenetic species concept are less likely to contest an established species classification if none of the

   Why this is right

   The world in which we increase the number of species is the world in which Splitters win. They are proponents of the phylogenetic species concept. They would challenge the idea that existing species A should only be 1 species. They would argue that it should be split it up into three species, A1, A2, and A3. If they win, then we just increased the number of species. This answer is saying, if no biological pop ? Splitters are less likely is endangered to argue for a split And so by contrapositive, if Splitters are arguing ? the biological pop for a species to be split is endangered As we discussed in our evaluation, if we only split very populous species into multiple species, that wouldn't necessarily trigger the addition of any new protected species. For example, splitting Species A, which has 30,000 specimens, into three species each of 10,000 specimens, would increase the number of species here from 1 to 3, but it wouldn't increase the number of protected species. A species with 30,000 or one with 10,000 is not endangered and thus not protected. This answer is saying that the Splitters usually wouldn't be going after a robust species like this. When they bother to challenge a classification and they try to get it subdivided into multiple species, the species they're challenging is an endangered one. They think Species B, which has 90 members, should really be B1, B2, and B3, and since B already had a low enough population to be protected, its subdivisions B1, B2, and B3 will certainly be low enough to be protected. When you "Split" a protected/endangered species, you get multiple protected/endangered species. So this answer choice strengthens the last sentence by assuring us that Splitters would be attempting to split up protected/endangered species.

   Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   26%